About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
, is that the bush administration really did believe that saddam was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. so did the c.i.a. and their view is that the sanctions that had been hemming him in were beginning to fray.ee and you know there's been a lot of journalism saying the intelligence was concocted. it was actually worse than that. it was not concocted. >> rose: it was just wrong. >> it was just wrong, and it waw not only wrong during the bush administration, it was wrong during the clinton administration. if you look at theti intele the very end of president bill clt's administration, they were talking also about saddam building up his w.m.d.s. >> rose: what was the error ofwa intelligence? why did they believe that? >> it was a tbawrl off imagination-- it was a failure of imagination. i was writing about the intelligence at the time and i myself thought some of it might have been valid when i was writing about it. really what happened is saddam cooperated with a letter of the united nations demands. he let inspectors go here and there, but he never cooperated with the spirit of it. and he was
wrong, and it waw not only wrong during the bush administration, it was wrong during the clinton administration. if you look at theti intele the very end of president bill clt's administration, they were talking also about saddam building up his w.m.d.s. >> rose: what was the error ofwa intelligence? why did they believe that? >> it was a tbawrl off imagination-- it was a failure of imagination. i was writing about the intelligence at the time and i myself thought some of it might have been valid when i was writing about it. really what happened is saddam cooperated with a letter of the united nations demands. he let inspectors go here and there, but he never cooperated with the spirit of it. and he was trying to maintain ambiguity over what he actually had. because he was concerned, first and foremost biran, which doesan have w.m.d., and he was trying to repress his own population. he had used poison gas against the kurds. he didn't want internal factions to know he didn't have it. he maintained a big of ambiguity about it. and even hans blinx wrote he thought he must be having
in the history of the u.s./israeli relations. it goes beyond begin and carter and bush 41 and the reality is that no american president for political reasons and policy reasons can afford to have this sort of relationship. a lot of it rests on netanyahu and his first incarnation. even clinton, a guy who was prepared to cut him all kinds of breaks was annoyed in extreme us with some of netanyahu's frustrating behavior. but the reality is that barack obama has to clear away this old business, this dysfunctional relationship and he has to deal with two basic realities. he does not want to be the american president on whose watch the two-state solution expires and he certainly doesn't want to be the america president on whose watch iran acquire it is xas capacity or everybody a nuclear weapon. so israel is central to both of those stories. he's going early, there's no expectations and he's going early with a view i suspect to seeing whether or not he can't manage that relationship with netanyahu more effectively and create a new relationship with an israeli public who's deeply mistrustful of
to the cairo speech, which was a speech to the arab and muslim world, the belief that bush had ruined america's reputation in the arab and muslim world. and that he needed to fix that. after all, we had 150,000 troops deployed in afghanistan and iraq. he was about to send more. we needed to improve our relations with the arabs and the muslims. and if we could achieve that, i think he felt that would redound to the benefit of israel because then the arabs would be prepared to engage with israel in response to our influence on them, and israel would then respond. that was essentially, as i understand, his theory of the case. and so essentially the message that he was playing to the arab world was i care about you. i understand your concerns. and-- . >> rose: the image of america is no longer the image i want you to have of america. >> correct. and by the way, i understand the palestinian issue is your hot-button issue and i'm going to solve it. he promised them that he would close cuan bega began-- guantanamo and solve the palestinian problem. but the message that he sent to israel at the same
republicans a lot angrier than teams, even though he came into this job as a bush appointee from the republican side. so i think if bernanke is an eight-year chairman, it will be of his soleition, rather than obama saying -- his volition, rather than obama saying it's time for you to go and put in a democrat. >> rose: has he made decisions you disagreed with? >> yes, i disagreed very fundamentally with the lehman brothers decision. it wasn't the cause of the crisis, we had the crisis before, but it was a turning point and everything fell apart. >> rose: what's their answer to that question. >> the answer has changed a few times but the basic answer is we department have the legal means. there was no tarp. the was no dodd-frank. they now have the legal means to handle the next lehman, so to speak, differently. but his view was that they didn't have the legal means to do it. >> the problem with that answer is they dnt have the legal means to do some of the things they actually did do and when they really wanted to to do it they found the legal means so i think that answer from them
with israel to do multiple attacks on the iranian facilities. started in the bush administration and then was expanded in the obama administration. but the obama administration, like the chinese, hasot admitted to having offensive cyber warriors so it's hard to imagine how we're going to have an honest conversation with the chinese about limiting these activities if neither country will even admit to owning weapons. >> rose: how much of the hacking comes from the united states and has nothing to do or is not even in any way monitored by the u.s. government? >> well hard thing to know becauset's very difficult to collec statistics thi aa. the u.s. government says that unlike the chinese, they do not do any hacking in order to steal corporate secrets. they're not out hacking on behalf of american companies. they only participate in operations that are focused on defending and that include the critical infrastructure. the infrastructure of the united states isn't in government hands it's mowly in private hands with a few ceptions and ey're having a hard time dng that. >> rose: ar
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)